Spacetime Vortex Controversy - Kip Thorne & Caltech

All, what do you think of this situation?

In November 2010 Caltech announced two openings for Tenure-track Faculty Position in Observational, Experimental or Theoretical Astrophysics.

http://www.pma.caltech.edu/GSR/positionsavail.html

I actually met with the Chair of the department in August 2010 before the positions were posted, to introduce myself and describe my engineering, physics, and teaching background, and the Three Volume Physics text series that I wrote; the Super Principia Mathematica.

Two months later the requisition came out November 2010, and, I applied for the position, and I knew that I had the right background for the position; I had to garner the appropriate letters of recommendation; and that is not an easy process, people don't have time these days to sit down and write letters of recommendation for anyone.

I could tell that they did a through search of my background, and I could tell that they bought a copy of my published works, Super Principia: The General Theory of Relativity, The First Law of Motion, and The Special Theory of Thermodynamics.

They informed me in March 2011 that I was not selected for faculty. I was disappointed. But this is what I am more disappointed about.

Now here one month later, Kip Thorne and his Caltech team has just released that his team has just stumbled on new spacetime vortex models of General Relativity by using the vortex as a model.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-04/ciot-pdn040811.php

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110411092750.htm

Now in the Super Principia, The General Theory of Relativity, are posited spacetime vortex models used to describe Black Holes. Kip Thorne's Caltech team is claiming to have come up with new vortex models that describe Black Holes and General Relativity.

It appears that they decided not to hire, but to use the potential of work? What a world we live in today!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You don't have the right background and the problem you had garnering letters is because you're not suitable for the job.

Do you have any evidence, other than wishful thinking on your part, that they bought your book? I doubt it. A thorough check into your work would have shown you're utterly incapable of doing even undergraduate level physics, never mind actual research into GR.

Self promotion of a book you can't and won't defend against criticism. I've brought up numerous mistakes in your claims on more than one occasion and you've failed to retort or failed to respond. Several times you've continued repeating errors, illustrating your dishonesty.

Vortices in physics are not new. But then you'd know that if you'd ever read anything beyond pop science books on the matter.#

Do you have any evidence that their work has anything to do with yours, other than using the word 'vortices'? It cannot because you don't even know what a tensor is, so there's nothing in your work which can even be stolen and presented as viable science.

Yes, what a world we live in when someone who doesn't know the difference between a vector and a matrix can write a 3 volume 'book' on relativity, con people into buying it and then engage in shameless self promotion, while simultaneously ignoring any and all errors pointed out in his 'work' because he's so self deluded.

If you aren't willing or able to defend your books then you shouldn't be allowed to promote them. That's what peer review is for, someone doesn't get their work in print unless they are willing to stand up to scrutiny. Your work is not peer reviewed and even the most basic of examination shows you'd fail a physics degree, if you could even get on one.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

@ A#: I sense that you're not a fan of Magneto and his book?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No. He and I have crossed paths several times. The most relevant time starts here where he makes numerous claims about relativity and yet demonstrates he can't do the basic mathematics of relativity expected of undergrads. He goes so far as to not know the difference between a scalar, a vector and a matrix in calculations. He doesn't understand relativity at all yet he's repeatedly mentioning his book. For instance this is a post where he refers to the book but in the third person, trying to use it as a reputable reference. It only comes out later in the discussion, when I point out plenty of mistakes in his claims, he admits he is the author of the the reference, despite having referred to himself in the third person initially.

He wants to spam his book but he's unwilling to defend his work. He mentions it every chance he gets but when I chip in with criticisms he ignores me now. For instance, he started this thread and despite having replied to other threads since starting this one he hasn't returned. Other threads where I've given criticism and pointed out errors he's begun avoiding.

In this thread he's essentially claiming his work has been stolen, that professors have bought his book and taken results from it. He haven't (and I'm certain won't) offer evidence they actually bought it and even if they did I'm certain they didn't take any results from it. Vortices are not new to physics and even if they were he has absolutely no mathematical results which can be stolen, if they were worth stealing, he can't do basic vector calculus.

Equating vectors to numbers to matrices is something 1st years should feel embarrassed about. When you've spent months, even years, writing a 3 volume door stop on relativity and you're making the same mistakes you might as well be bellowing from the rooftops "I haven't got a ****ing clue what I'm talking about!". It's like claiming to be a whiz at English but not know what verbs are. I've corrected him on this and if he were interested in expanding his understanding he'd have gone away, read up and realised his mistake. Instead a short while later he's repeating the same wrong work. Complete and utter absence of intellectual honesty.

He's trying to scam people who know less than him out of money. It's dishonest and the fact he won't defend his work or submit it to review by a reputable journal illustrates he knows it can't stand up but he still wants to spam it.

 

Alphanumeric, Jealously makes you look and sound weak!

I have chosen to ignore and not answer your foolish statements because I don't have time to argue with a fool. There is an old saying, "Don't cast your pearls among swine."

I have informed you that I have advanced engineering and physics degrees, 20 years of solid aerospace engineering experience, 10 years as a math faculty professor, and 22 years of personal research in physics that produced a three volume physics texts similar to Newton's Principia; which is a unique feat in itself.

I have had to use the third person as a reference, because of the unique rules in posting in forums.

You have made the riduclous statements that I don't know the difference between a scalar and a vector. You sound like an old fool!

You have so much knowledge where is your book or books that I can review?

 

What do I have to be jealous of? I have work published which passed peer review, you don't. I get paid to do physics and maths research, you don't.

If you think I'm wrong then please accept my challenge and head over to the maths and physics forum. You and I can engage in a discussion (with a few ground rules) about the validity of your work in regards to general relativity. There's at least 4 or 5 people here, other than myself, with working knowledge of GR due to having physics degrees, masters or even PhDs, they can judge us.

I've got nothing to hide.

And you seriously think people will buy that?

And yet you don't know the difference between a scalar, a vector and a matrix. This means either you're lying, you went to a terrible university or you've received a massive blow to the skull in recent times, wiping all basic high school level and beyond maths and physics from your brain.

Yes, the rules against self publicising, as well as basic logic that when asked "Do you have a reference for that?" you can't reference yourself!! How bloody dishonest is that!

Is your memory that short? I just linked to the relevant thread and post. Here you equate scalars and matrices. You repeatedly say \(T_{ab} \propto m\), that the stress-energy tensor is a multiple of rest mass, a scalar. Wrong. You don't know what the 'd' means in the Schwarzchild metric, you think its a number and not the operator used in differential forms, ie \(d : \Xi(M) \to T*M\), not \(d \in \mathbb{R}\).

Firstly whether or not I have published books is irrelevant to the fact your books are bullshit, tyhey haven't passed peer review. Anyone can publish anything they want if they can pay for it. My work has been published in journals, specifically JHEP and Physics Review B.

Like I said, I'll happily engage you in a dedicated thread over in the maths forum on the mistakes you've presented in your posts. What do you say?

 

You compare him to swine?

We all sprang from apes, apparently you didnt spring far enough.

 

I am definitely up for some physics fun!!

This sounds like you saying, "Hey, let's play poker, and while we are at it, why don't we let my family members and friends hold the real money while we play."

I did not even look at the old post, but I am sure that I was mis-quoted.

For your clarity, a Matrix is a rectangular array of vectors, or scalars.

Now what I think you are trying to keep "confusion" going about, is what is the true definiton of Tensors. I believe that if you randomly asked ten (10) physicist today what is actually a Tensor, you will get ten (10) different answers.

This is why you get ignored, and why I am slow to pull the trigger to your "challenge." You see only what you want to see, not what the real world presents. Everytime you say these type of things you sound "Foolish." And only a fool argues with a "Fool."

Once again this is why, I think that your challenge would be futile.

First I never used the term "multiple" that would be incorrect. You try and twist words to fit your meaning; now this is "Dishonest."

The Stress Energy Tensor is "directly proportional" to the Net Inertial Mass that is the source of the warping and curvature of spacetime. The more matter or net mass present in a given location the larger the Stress Energy Tensor in that region; given by the proportionality that you so eloquently describe.

\(T_{ab} \propto m_{Net}\)

I stand by this above!

Once again this is why, I think that your challenge would be futile.

I am using the symbol (\(d -> m \)) to represent "distance" measured relative to the center of the system. This is technically called the Semi-Major Radius, and I am using (\(d -> m \)) instead of the range term (\(r -> m \)) which is what you would have used for distance.

You are assuming that I am using (\(d \)) to represent a "Differential" or a "Change" in the vector or scalar. Your assumption is incorrect; not true!

Now, if you who are a "Reviewer of Papers" is not able to pick up an authors nuance for symbols, since there are so many in physics using their own symbols today; I am not sure that I would want to send my papers to you for review if you can't figure out when someone means and actual "distance" vs a "differential".

Not true, base on your post this is completely relevant. Lots of physicist can write and publish content papers, but not many have demonstrated that they have command of a whole subject; which is what a book would suggest, whether you agree with the validity of the subject matter or not.

Who has even read any of your papers, I have been studying physics for over twenty years and have not even heard of one of your papers?

AlphaNumeric, the way we communicate and share ideas has changed over the last 20 years. At large the physics community is currently rethinking this whole classical way of peer review and that process. The internet is changing this process. So don't throw your "Grandfather" ways of doing things at me; "These Times Are A Changin."

My goal is to produce papers for main stream Journals over this year and the next.

So with that said your challenge is very intriguing; it would depend on the rules and the goal. But I am up for it, if done right!

 

My basic ground rules are that relevant direct questions must be answered (providing there's not a flood of 100 of them all at once). When asked citations to reputable sources must be provided. If algebraic details are requested they should be provided, at least to the level where the structure/approach of the derivation becomes clear.

When putting this challenge to Farsight, another hack whose self published his own nonsense, I also put in the rule that if the above rules are not observed, by either of us, then the offender (as deemed by other posters, like the moderators) gets a month long ban.

Sound good?

Can't your work stand on its own? As I've just laid out, one of the rules is reputable sources are given when a claim is queried, so provided your claims are backed up by journals and books there's nothing to worry about.

Sorry, reputable peer reviewed journals and books.

Equations you posted in said thread include :

\(g_{ab} = \frac{V_{ol}}{4 \pi} \({4 \pi}sin^2({\frac{\phi}{2}})\) \).

\(g_{ab}\) is a rank 2 tensor. The expression on the right hand side is a scalar. Thus the equation is wrong.

In the next post you say :

\(r_{S} = \2 (\frac{m_{net}G} {c^2}) = (\frac{\frac{1}{2}\ m_{net}c^2} {\frac{1}{4} \frac{c^4}{G}}) = (\frac{T_{ab}} {\frac{1}{4} \frac{c^4}{G}}) = \frac{G_{ab}}{2 \pi} \).

That's equating a length, \(r_{S}\), and thus a scalar, with a rank 2 tensor, \(\frac{1}{2\pi}G_{ab}\). Thus the equation is wrong.

You go on to give this expression :

\(s^2 = \(\frac{d^2} {1 - (\frac{r_{S}}{d})}\) + \ d^2\({a}^2 + \ b^2 \sin^2(a_0))\).

You fail to realise the 'd' are not numbers, you cannot factorise expressions like \(dx^{a}\) into \(d\) and \(x^{a}\). \(x^{a}\) is a set of coordinates defined by a chart on the manifold M. \(dx^{a}\) are a set of basis 1-forms which span the co-tangent space \(T*M\). 'd' is a differential operator. Thus you cannot simply drop it from the left hand side. Thus the equation is wrong.

I could go on but we can save that for the new thread perhaps.

Oh really, tell me more. We didn't cover matrices during my 8 years at university doing maths and physics.

You believe that because you haven't bothered to learn what they are. They are maps which are linear in all arguments and which map arbitrary tensor products of a vector space and its dual to a field, typically R.

This is an exceptionally good book on going through the formal construction of the many mathematical tools commonly used by physicists.

Besides, if you've familiarised yourself with general relativity and all its machinery then you should be more than a bit familiar with tensors and the way they are used. Now you're trying to imply there might be an issue of confusion because there might be multiple meanings. I'm using 'tensor' in the way relevant to this discussion, in the way used in every single relativity textbook and lecture course I or anyone I've worked with or been educated with have ever read.

I find it funny you talk about 'seeing what you want to see' when you claim to have said valid physics when someone only needs to open a beginners book on relativity or even basic vector calculus to see you haven't. I've already given one such book (though its aimed at graduates, it gets heavy later on), I can provide more.

As I've just explained, your equations are wrong. If you would like me to provide citations, ie book references, where you can read up on the details I can provide them. It should be enough for you to Wikipedia 'tensor rank' and then realise you can't equate two tensors of different rank.

That doesn't negative the fact your expressions are mistaken.

Firstly, in the expressions of the form \(s^{2} = ...\) what happened to the d's, since metrics are usually given as \(ds^{2} = ....\). In such cases the d's are differential operators, that's part of their definition. If you replaced them with 'm' then you were wrong. If you cancelled them in any way, then you were wrong. The way you go from \(ds^{2} = ...\) to \(s^{2} = ....\) is to use integration.

\(s = \int ds = \int \sqrt{ds^{2}}\), therefore \(s^{2} = \left( \int \sqrt{ds^{2}} \right)^{2}\). This is quite different from dropping the d's or converting them to m's. The expressions you give dont' show any sign of integration, you've just dropped the differential operators.

You've made a mistake commonly made by 1st years.

So its my fault you use obscure and frankly stupid notation?

A metric is often stated in terms of the line element \(ds^{2} = g_{ab}dx^{a}dx^{b} = g_{00}dx^{0}dx^{0} + \ldots\). The d's mean something specific. To relabel anything to 'd' makes for poor notation and you'd have a paper rejected on such grounds, asking you to rewrite your equations in a clearer form.

But you go much worse than that. You effectively say \(ds^{2} = g_{ab}dx^{a} dx^{b}\) therefore \(s^{2} = g_{ab}x^{a}x^{b}\). Here you've turned the SC metric into : \(s^2 = \(\frac{d^2} {1 - (\frac{r_{S}}{d})}\) + \ d^2\({a}^2 + \ b^2 \sin^2(a_0))\).

The SC metric normally is of the form \(-ds^{2} = -f(r)dt^{2} + f(r)^{-1}dr^{2} + r^{2}(d\theta^{2} + \sin(\theta)^{2}d\phi^{2})\).

You magically turn all the line elements d[something] into just [something else], which is not valid. The spherical line element section is a dead give away. Compute it for yourself, work out \(ds\) for the metric, integrate it along a curve of your choice (whichever one you did in the post I'm referring to) and then compute \(s^{2}\). It won't be what you say it is.

 

Ohh, so I get it, you are a "Young Fool" and not an "Old Fool;" that is even worse!!

I know this is the problem. When you were five (5) years old, and they just started trusting you to behave and let go to school to learn; I was twenty two (22) dropped out of college in my junior year, locked my self in a room for six (6) months studying all of the physics books that I could get my hands on!! Didn't they teach you to respect your elders when you were growing up!!

So that PhD that you are so proud of has nothing to do with understanding and accomplishment in physics!!! Some things just require experience and time to be accomplished!

I agree with the caveat, that these particular discussions are limited to the concepts and equations that you arbitrarily choose in your above post. Let's agree not to bring in any external or side concepts that diverge away from the equations that you carefully and arbitrarily choose.

This is totally unnecessary, I choose to be a gentleman at all times. But you may need that rule!!

I am willing to discuss an address the equations above.

I am willing to discuss an address the equations above.

There is so much hypocrisy here that I have to address this; I agree with this equation above totally. But do you understand what that equation is saying, if you say that math is a language.

I have listed that equation above in another post, but you did not choose that equation in your equation "selection process" (Here).

 

Hi, Magneto_1

What is the difference between your theory and Einstein's GR, or Newton's? Are you revising or discarding them?

 

Tashja, I believe that this post is where AlphaNumeric wants to play "Patty Cakes." But if you start a new post with a similar question I will elaborate.

In short. I have a theory within the frame work of General Relativity. General Relativity is a field of study where Einstein extended Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation. Many other people have contributed to the Field of General Relativity, Einstein is just the bigger celebrity.

Within the field and framework of General Relativity, Newton predicts that mass attracts mass from great distances across the universe with a force that is directly proportional to the product of the masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between those objects. This still applies.

Within the field and framework of General Relativity, Einstein predicts that mass interacts with mass from great distances across the universe via a spacetime material that can be described by Einstein's Field Equation. Einstein's Field Equation predicts a Spacetime Repulsive Force to exist in opposition to Newton's Gravitational Attraction Force.

Within the field and framework of General Relativity, Super Principia Mathematica predicts that the Einstein Repulsive Force is renamed the "Cosmic Vacuum "Dark" Force", a Universal constant that acts pervasive throughout the entire universe. And that spacetime can be described by a ideal fluid "Aether" gas. This Aether Gas system naturally forms "Donut vortexes." All Inertial mass units are "Donut Vortexes" and Photons are "Foot Ball" Vortexes. And all of this is modeled mathematically, and fits neatly with the framework of GR.

Kinda sounds, familiar, Kip Thorne and his Cal Tech team has magically come up with new "Donut Vortex" models.

 

Magneto_1,

You may elaborate in my thread ''Pushing space'' if you want. I want to know for example, if the speed of light remains the same in your theory, and if you managed to reconcile the quantum with the metric, etc. Thanks.

 

Some of the equations that you selected occurred when I was being sloppy when I wrote them, trying to be short; I did not know that I would have to fill in every single little math detail in a forum post; if that were the case, each post would be a mile long.

Also I agree to change my clumsy notation for Semi-Major Radius distance (\(d \)) to (\(r \)) to avoid confusion.

Just for some background on my choice for (\(d \)) vs (\(r \)). I like to use the Semi-major Radius distance (\(d \)) to represent the distance measured from the Mean Center of the System out to infinity in the Center of Mass frame of the system.

I like to use the Range Radius distance (\(r \)) to represent the distance measured from an External Frame observer to the Mean Center of the Center of Mass Frame; and that frame can be at rest or in motion relative to the external observer.

But for the sake of addressing your challenge and to avoid confusion, I will use (\(r \)) to represent distance measured relative to the Mean Center, in the Center of Mass Frame of Reference.

AlphaNumeric let's start with this equation above.

First I want to know; if I wrote the above equation in this form would it have satisfied you?

The Spacetime Volume Metric

\(g_{{\theta}{\phi}} = \frac{V_{ol}}{4 \pi} \({4 \pi}sin^2({\frac{\Psi({\theta},{\phi})}{2}})\) = \frac{V_{ol}}{4 \pi} \({2 \pi}(1 - cos({\Psi({\theta},{\phi})})\) \)\( -> m^3 \).

\(g_{{\theta}{\phi}} = \frac{r^3}{3} \({4 \pi}sin^2({\frac{\Psi({\theta},{\phi})}{2}})\) = \frac{r^3}{3} \({2 \pi}(1 - cos({\Psi({\theta},{\phi})})\) \)\( -> m^3 \).


Spherical Latitude Angle: \( {\theta}\)\( -> radians \).

Spherical Longitude Angle: \( {\phi}\)\( -> radians \).


The Total Spherical Volume:

\(V_{ol} = \frac{4\pi}{3} r^3 \) \( -> m^3 \)

Hence for a unit sphere the solid angle of the spherical cap is given as:

\( \Omega = {4 \pi}(\frac{g_{{\theta}{\phi}}}{V_{ol}}) = \({4 \pi}sin^2({\frac{\Psi({\theta},{\phi})}{2}})\) = \({2 \pi}(1 - cos({\Psi({\theta},{\phi})})\) \)\( -> radians \).

\( \Omega = \frac{A_{Area}}{r^2} = \frac{A_{{\theta}{\phi}}}{r^2}\).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_angle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steradian

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cone_(geometry)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_coordinates

You may be able to make this leap:

\( \Omega^2 = \frac{A_{{\theta}{\phi}}}{r^2} = (\theta^{2} + \sin(\theta_{0})^{2} \phi^{2})\).

In differential form; if you integrate the equation below you will get the equation above:

\( d\Omega^2 = \frac{dA_{{\theta}{\phi}}}{r^2} = (d\theta^{2} + \sin(\theta_{0})^{2} d\phi^{2}) = {3}(\frac{dg_{{\theta}{\phi}}}{r^3})\).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker_metric

The Schwarzschild metric:

\(-ds^{2} = -f(r)dt^{2} + f(r)^{-1}dr^{2} + r^{2}(d\theta^{2} + \sin(\theta_{0})^{2}d\phi^{2})\) \( -> m^2 \).


AlphaNumeric, do you agree or Disagree with the above equations?

 

Magneto, I'll start a thread in the maths & physics forum sometime today so that we can lay out all out in a clear way from the start. As such I'll not reply here now.

 

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2733330#post2733330

 

I like to agree with legitimate criticism of AN but usually that is directed at his social skills. In this case I think he had you pegged. Would you share some of the other feed back you are getting about your book and share some of the reviews? Can you say how successful the book has been or if sales have been disappointing?

I know that is asking a lot but if there is some success to report why wouldn't you and if the venture has fallen flat, well take your lumps.

It does seem that you are letting AN help you address the errors; maybe that is a your strategy at this point?

 

I take it back. AN seems to be willing to follow you to any thread and troll there regardless of the positive contributions that you make. He makes only negative flaming and trolling remarks unless he is bragging about something he says he has done that he portrays as real science, no links of course. He is the unprofessional one and M1 has proven to be a class act. Sorry for being deceived by AN.

 

What positive contributions? Even when linking to papers he still manages to misrepresent them. He hasn't provided any valid explanation of any part of science, each and every time he's made mistakes which someone has had to correct.

In the link I posted above I provide links to my work to demonstrate I am not talking hot air. But good job on showing you're so desperate to throw insults you don't bother to check your facts.

Someone only needs to read the thread I linked to to see that Magneto's grasp of the stuff he claims to understand is below undergraduate level. That makes this thread, the claim that Kip Thorne stole his work, all the more laughable. I popped up in various threads Magneto was in because he was advertising his book and presenting his wrong work as if it were peer reviewed valid research. He has no peer reviewed published work, has none of the qualifications he tries to insult people like CpyBork for working towards and does not grasp the material he claims.

I'm not here in a professional capacity. My research career doesn't advance or slow based on how many people on a forum I can convince of anything, this is leisure. Magneto is here trying to push his work, which he deems to be his profession and so from his point of view he is here in a professional capacity. He's trying to convince people in order to sell books, which he thinks will advance his research career. It won't but he doesn't understand that.

If someone who isn't familiar with vector calculus or relativity were to read some of his posts they might think what he is saying is actual GR and that would taint their understanding. I have no issue with people putting forth new ideas but if they present it as legit work when it isn't then its deceptive and dishonest. That is precisely what Magneto does. At least you have the honesty to admit your work is all supposition, even if you can't see it isn't science. No one is going to read your work and think "I now have some understanding of relativity", but someone might be fooled by Magneto. Hence I point it out. No one competent at science could be fooled by Magneto. For those who are just starting out learning science they haven't yet learnt enough to see through him so I point it out for them. If you can't see through him then it's just a sad reflection on how little science you've learnt for all the years you've been here.

Ah, did I hurt your feelings by criticising your approach to your 'work'? Or are you just trying to bait me back into pseudoscience because you want some attention? I leave you alone, illustrating you aren't the centre of my attention, and you come looking to bait me. It's as I said, you want to think people are obsessed with you but when they demonstrate otherwise you go looking for them. Reiku did the same, so did Jack_. No trundle back to pseudo and continue talking to yourself. I'll pop my head in in a year or so and see how far you haven't gone.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

AN, you are making my day. No one reads posts like that. I might go back and read it later if I have time.

AN, are you such a sour individual at the heart of your being that you can’t allow a good natured conversation to take place about foundational views of the nature of the universe? Do you insist that all discussion be aimed at glorifying your view of nature that only exists to the extent that mathematics applies to it because you think math is going to be the way of discovery of reality instead of observation, reason and discussion being the basis of inspiring math that describes reality? Your view of the universe is getting so convoluted that no layman can understand it. Does that translate into the fact that we shouldn’t be allowed to discuss it without your antagonistic and arrogant trolling. We don’t need your contributions if that is all they amount to. And your posts that follow after mine have no merit in my view the instant you referred to my thinking as idiotic and ignorant, which is how you responded to me in my first thread I started here at SciForums about three years ago. You have been a constant troll every sense. I entered into a discussion with some other interested layman who you had been following and trolling for some time before that, unbeknown to me. You have never learned that you are a social misfit and shouldn’t even be allowed to discuss anything with anyone if they ask you to desist. Please desist from following me and everyone else you have drooling disdain for, you arrogant antagonistic troll.